Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

A versatile generalized digital twin for Electron Microscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A calibrated ray-optics model of a transmission electron microscope can predict and set arbitrary lens configurations, removing much of the trial-and-error from advanced imaging and spectroscopy.

desk verdict Useful calibration tool for EM, but a scale degeneracy in the calibration equations leaves absolute camera-length predictions unanchored. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29411 v1 pith:XUD5X5RF submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Thomas W. Pfeifer , Andrew R. Lupini , Eric R. Hoglund This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords digitaltwinelectronmicroscopyrayopticstransfermatrixlenscalibrationcriticalcurrentcameralengthconvergenceangle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a calibrated ray-optics model of a transmission electron microscope—a 'digital twin'—can predict and set arbitrary condenser and projector lens configurations. The authors develop calibration procedures based on critical lens currents, where the beam diameter on the Ronchigram camera becomes insensitive to a neighboring lens, reducing the problem to the single-lens equation. They demonstrate on real instruments that the model can set convergence angles, camera lengths, rotations, and image/diffraction plane positions with practical accuracy. The wider point is that a physically informed model of the microscope column makes advanced modes like momentum-resolved EELS reachable and provides a foundation for automated, AI-driven microscopy.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a transfer-matrix description of paraxial electron optics, using the round-lens matrix parameterized by field strength K and lens length L, with the simplifying approximation f^-1 ≈ K^2 L for thin lenses. The calibration observable is the critical current: the value of one lens's current at which the beam diameter on the detector is stationary with respect to another lens's current, which occurs when the first lens places a crossover at the second lens. This reduces each measurement to the thin-lens equation, forming a system that fixes unknown lens constants and positions. Beam rotation, tracked as θ = -K L, is calibrated by matching defocused Ronchigram images, which also

What would settle it

On a real microscope, calibrate the projector system using one set of critical-current measurements, then request a camera length that lies well outside the calibration range but within lens limits. If the measured camera length deviates from the model's prediction by substantially more than the roughly 30% worst-case error reported, and the deviation cannot be attributed to post-specimen aberrations or hysteresis, the digital twin's predictive claim is not supported. A more direct check: if two independent calibration sweeps (using different lens pairs) disagree on the inferred lens positions

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a first-order transfer-matrix ray-tracing model, once calibrated, constitutes a digital twin of the microscope column that can be used predictively: the user requests a desired convergence angle, camera length, or rotation, and the model returns the lens currents to set. Calibration is achieved by locating 'critical currents' at which the beam diameter is independent of another lens's strength; at such a point the lens focuses a crossover onto the plane of the other lens, so the single-lens formula 1/f = 1/d1 + 1/d2 applies. Each critical-current measurement yields one equation; with enough measurements the system can be solved for per-lens current-to-field-strength

Load-bearing premise

The calibration's validity rests on the assumption that the system of equations built from critical-current measurements uniquely determines the lens positions, lengths, and current-to-strength constants, and that the thin-lens approximation f^-1 ≈ K^2 L is accurate enough across the operating range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can compute lens settings for a requested convergence angle, camera length, or diffraction-plane rotation without iterative trial-and-error on the instrument.
  • New condenser and projector modes, including momentum-resolved EELS configurations, can be designed in simulation and pushed directly to the microscope.
  • The same calibration procedures can be automated, enabling closed-loop adjustment and recording of the microscope's true state during data acquisition.
  • Because the model tracks beam current, rotation, and plane positions, it can reconstruct the actual microscope state during analysis rather than relying on nominal values.
  • A physically informed model of this kind is a natural substrate for machine-learning and AI-driven microscope control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the calibration procedure scales to arbitrary lens groups, it could be applied to other charged-particle beam instruments (e.g., helium-ion or electron-beam lithography columns) where the critical-current zeros are similarly observable.
  • The reported up-to-30% camera-length deviation in extreme cases suggests that higher-order (thick-lens or aberration) corrections may be needed for quantitative diffraction work; the thin-lens approximation's error grows beyond 5% when lens length exceeds ~7.5% of focal length, so the digital twin's predictive power has a defined envelope.
  • The critical-current method could be turned into a self-check: if two different calibration sweeps yield inconsistent lens positions or lengths, the model should flag that the system is underdetermined or that the thin-lens approximation is invalid in that regime.
  • One might test the model's generality by calibrating a second instrument of the same type starting only from nominal positions; if the calibration converges to the same physical lens positions and lengths, that would argue the twin captures the instrument's true optics rather than fitting noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a ray-optics digital twin of a STEM column built from paraxial transfer matrices, together with calibration procedures that map nominal lens currents to field strengths using critical-current (wobble) measurements and aperture-current curves. The paper claims that, after calibration, the model can predict and set arbitrary condenser/projector states. Out-of-sample tests on a real instrument are reported: predicted convergence angles agree with measured values to within about 1–4%, rotations to within a few degrees, but predicted camera lengths deviate by up to 28–30% (Table II). The central physics is intentionally simplified: single-lens focusing and the approximation f^-1 ≈ K^2 L with an assumed lens length L.

Significance. If the calibration issues are resolved, this tool could genuinely lower the barrier to specialized STEM modes and support automation and ML integration in electron microscopy. The paper's strengths are its transparent physical model, publicly available code repository, and genuine out-of-sample predictions on a real instrument (Tables I and II). However, the calibration procedure has an identifiability problem: the equations used are homogeneous in length, so the absolute scale of the column is not fixed by critical-current measurements. This concern is directly relevant to the paper's central claim, since the predicted camera length is an absolute distance and Table II shows errors up to 28%. The manuscript also relies on the thin-lens approximation without reporting the operating L/f values, despite the Supplement showing >5% error for L/f > 7.5%. These issues are fixable, but they must be addressed before the predictive claim is accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (6)] The calibration equations are homogeneous of degree −1: if every axial position, focal length, and assumed lens length is multiplied by a constant s, Eq. (6) is unchanged. Likewise, the rotation θ = K L is invariant under K → K/s, L → sL. Thus critical-current measurements determine only ratios of distances to focal lengths, not the absolute column scale. The text's assertion that 'Provided enough measurements, the system of equations can be solved for all unknowns' is therefore not justified without an absolute anchor or regularization that pins positions to their 'approximate knowledge' values. Since predicted camera length is an absolute distance, an unresolved scale factor directly propagates into camera-length error; the 28% deviation in Table II, row (b) is consistent with such a scale misestimation. Please demonstrate identifiability (e.g., repeat calibration from perturbed initia
  2. [Calibrating the model / Supplemental Fig. S2] The calibration uses f^-1 ≈ K^2 L and the single-lens formula, but the Supplemental Material itself reports >5% error when L/f > 7.5%. The manuscript never reports L/f for the calibrated condenser or projector lenses, despite noting that 'If the length in the model is adjusted later, the calibration between I and K can be updated.' Because the thin-lens approximation is load-bearing in every calibration step, the authors should report the operating L/f values and either justify the approximation or use the exact solenoid matrix during calibration. This is particularly important for high-rotation (thick) lenses, where the approximation is expected to fail.
  3. [Table II / 'Arbitrary control over projection modes'] The paper's headline claim is the ability to 'quickly and easily determine the correct lens values' for new modes. Table II shows camera-length deviations of 28%, 16%, and 6.3% for the three tested non-reference modes; two of the three exceed 15%. The text calls this 'moderate error,' but for quantitative applications such as momentum-resolved EELS, where camera length sets the momentum scale, 28% is not moderate. The abstract and conclusion should either quantify this limitation explicitly or the calibration procedure must be improved before the claim is made.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Global] Typos: 'robost' should be 'robust'; 'preceding leni' should be 'preceding lens'; 'slight defocus' begins a sentence with a lowercase letter.
  2. [Table I] No uncertainty estimates are given for the measured convergence angles or lens currents. Since the paper is about predictive accuracy, reporting measurement precision is important.
  3. [Fig. 2 / Eqs. (7)-(8)] The aperture-current formula would be clearer if the normalization of I_beam and the definition of r_aperture were stated explicitly (initial beam size, absolute radius, etc.).
  4. [Code availability] The code repository is cited by URL but without a version or DOI. Please add a versioned reference for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: calibration is fitted, predictions are new states checked against independent measurements.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a calibration-and-prediction workflow, not a circular one. Model parameters (K=C*I, lens positions, lens lengths) are fitted to measured critical currents via Eq. 6 and to measured rotations; the predictive claims in Tables I and II concern convergence angles, camera lengths, and rotations for microscope states that were not used to set those constants, and the predictions are compared against independently measured Ronchigram values. No equation is used both to define a parameter and then to predict that same parameter by construction. The two self-citations [8,9] appear only in the error discussion for post-specimen aberrations and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The identifiability concern raised by the homogeneity of Eq. 6 (scale-degeneracy) is a genuine soundness/identifiability issue, but the paper asserts rather than proves solvability; that is a missing proof, not circularity. Similarly, Supplemental Fig. S2's documented thin-lens approximation error affects model accuracy, not circularity. Overall, the central claim retains independent content and is externally testable against the reported measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calibration depends entirely on fitted per-lens constants, assumed lens lengths, and adjusted lens positions. No new physical entities are introduced. The linearity and paraxial assumptions are load-bearing: if they fail, the predicted plane positions and magnifications inherit systematic error. The paper gives no identifiability proof for the fitted system.

free parameters (4)
  • per-lens current-to-field-strength coefficient C (K=C*I) = not reported
    Each lens in the model has a calibration constant; fitted from critical-current measurements. Values are not given.
  • assumed lens length L for each round lens = not reported
    Paper states 'we maintain the f^-1 ≈ K^2 L approximation with an assumed lens length L'. Later adjustment changes the K calibration.
  • lens positions z_i along the column = not reported
    Approximate positions are fine-tuned by fitting critical currents; no values or uncertainties are reported.
  • relative aperture diameters / beam size ratios = not reported
    Fit from beam-current vs lens-current curves (Eqs. 7-8); used for aperture calibration.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Brown's first-order transfer matrix representation of round lenses, drift spaces, and apertures is adequate for predicting plane locations and magnifications
    Used in Eq. 1 and the entire Methodology; the paper notes it neglects aberrations and higher-order terms.
  • domain assumption Small-angle approximation f^-1 ≈ K^2 L holds with acceptable accuracy in the operating range
    Used to set up calibration equations and Eq. 6; Supplemental C shows >5% focal length error when L/f exceeds ~7.5%.
  • domain assumption Lens strength is a linear function of electrical current: K = C * I
    Stated as found on Nion microscopes; used to convert measured critical currents into field strengths. Linearity may fail outside calibration range.
  • domain assumption Neglecting dipoles, quadrupoles, hexapoles and aberrations does not change the location or magnification of image/diffraction planes
    Methodology argues dipoles only define a laterally-varying reference frame and first-order matrices do not capture aberrations.
  • domain assumption Measured Ronchigram quantities (beam diameter, rotation angle, integrated current) correspond directly to the modeled ray-bundle quantities
    All calibration and validation steps compare model rays to Ronchigram/detector readings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A versatile generalized digital twin for Electron Microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUD5X5RF

@misc{pith2026260729411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A versatile generalized digital twin for Electron Microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUD5X5RF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29411}
}
read the original abstract

Development of specialized imaging and spectroscopy states in transmission electron microscopy is needed for novel applications, such as flexible momentum-resolved high energy-resolution spectroscopy. This task is complicated by the need to align and configure many different lenses, and by ambiguity as to the locations of various imaging and diffraction planes, which are often not well documented. Here we develop a versatile digital twin for simulating the electron beam trajectory throughout an electron microscope. Our code package contains simple tools for modeling the microscope column, and we present multiple procedures for dialing in precise lens locations and calibrating lens models. This enables use of the model as a predictive tool, allowing the user to quickly and easily determine the correct lens values for setting up new condenser or projector modes. Automatic procedures to change lens settings and measure the resulting changes can be used to close the loop. With the accelerating development of machine learning and artificial intelligence tools, we also believe a physically-informed model of the microscope can serve as a valuable tool for automated microscopy and AI/ML integration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Beam diameter is measured (shown as heatmap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) crossovers through apertures can be found by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Ronchigram images of lacy carbon at two lens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Various microscope states are modeled. (a,b,c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Momentum resolved EELS requires simultaneously [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics , number =

    Thomas, John A and Turney, Joseph E and Iutzi, Ryan M and Amon, Cristina H and McGaughey, Alan J H , doi =. Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics , number =

  2. [2]

    Brown, K. L. and Rothacker, F. and Carey, D. C. and Iselin, Ch. , title =. 1983 , month =. doi:10.2172/1453863 , url =

    work page doi:10.2172/1453863 1983

  3. [3]

    Transmission Electron Microscopy and Diffractometry of Materials , ISBN =

    Fultz, Brent and Howe, James , year =. Transmission Electron Microscopy and Diffractometry of Materials , ISBN =. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29761-8 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29761-8

  4. [4]

    Microscopy and Microanalysis , volume =

    Lupini, Andrew R and Chi, Miaofang and Hoglund, Eric R , title =. Microscopy and Microanalysis , volume =. 2025 , month =. doi:10.1093/mam/ozaf048.071 , url =

    work page doi:10.1093/mam/ozaf048.071 2025

  5. [5]

    and Lupini, Andrew R

    Hoglund, Eric R. and Lupini, Andrew R. , title =. 2024 , month =. doi:10.1088/1674-1056/ad73b2 , url =

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1056/ad73b2 2024

  6. [6]

    1949 , publisher=

    Theory and Design of Electron Beams , author=. 1949 , publisher=

    1949

  7. [7]

    Principles of Electron Optics , author=

  8. [8]

    Matrix Methods in Optical Instrument Design , author=

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Electron Microscopy , volume =

    Haider, Maximilian and Rose, Herald and Uhlemann, Stephan and Kabius, Bernd and Urban, Knut , title =. Journal of Electron Microscopy , volume =. 1998 , month =. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jmicro.a023610 , url =

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    and Stewart, Andrew , year =

    Landers, David and Clancy, Ian and Weber, Dieter and Dunin-Borkowski, Rafal E. and Stewart, Andrew , year =. TEMGYM Basic: transmission electron microscopy simulation software for teaching and training of microscope operation , volume =. Journal of Applied Crystallography , pu...

    doi

  3. [11]

    Mode decomposition based on crystallographic symmetry in the band-unfolding method , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2017 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.95.024305 , url =

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Frequency-resolved frozen phonon multislice method and its application to vibrational electron energy loss spectroscopy using parallel illumination , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2021 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.104.104301 , url =

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Dynamical Theory of Angle-Resolved Electron Energy Loss and Gain Spectroscopies of Phonons and Magnons in Transmission Electron Microscopy Including Multiple Scattering Effects , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2025 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.036402 , url =

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Togo, Atsushi and Chaput, Laurent and Tadano, Terumasa and Tanaka, Isao , title =. J. Phys. Condens. Matter , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  7. [15]

    Togo, Atsushi , title =. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  8. [16]

    and Mermin, N

    Ashcroft, Neil W. and Mermin, N. David , month = jan, year =. Solid

  9. [17]

    Theory of momentum-resolved phonon spectroscopy in the electron microscope , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2019 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.99.094105 , url =

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    and He, Zuxian and Xu, Mingquan and Pennycook, Stephen J

    Li, Aowen and Zeiger, Paul M. and He, Zuxian and Xu, Mingquan and Pennycook, Stephen J. and Rusz, J. Physical Review Letters , keywords =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.046101 , file =

    doi

  11. [19]

    Giannuzzi, L. A. and Stevie, F. A. , doi =. Micron , keywords =

  12. [20]

    and Adams, David P

    MoberlyChan, Warren J. and Adams, David P. and Aziz, Michael J. and Hobler, Gerhard and Schenkel, Thomas , doi =. MRS Bulletin , number =

  13. [21]

    MRS Bulletin , number =

    Mayer, Joachim and Giannuzzi, Lucille a and Kamino, Takeo and Michael, Joseph , file =. MRS Bulletin , number =

  14. [22]

    Scientific Reports , number =

    Pandey, Komal and Paredis, Kristof and Hantschel, Thomas and Drijbooms, Chris and Vandervorst, Wilfried , doi =. Scientific Reports , number =

  15. [23]

    Microscopy and Microanalysis , volume =

    Savitzky, Benjamin H and Zeltmann, Steven E and Hughes, Lauren A and Brown, Hamish G and Zhao, Shiteng and Pelz, Philipp M and Pekin, Thomas C and Barnard, Edward S and Donohue, Jennifer and Rangel DaCosta, Luis and Kennedy, Ellis and Xie, Yujun and Janish, Matthew T and Schne...

    2021

  16. [24]

    2024 , month =

    Perspective on atomic-resolution vibrational electron energy-loss spectroscopy , volume =. 2024 , month =. doi:10.1063/5.0231688 , journal =

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research , pages =

    Maisch, Th and W, Ch and Mi, Th and Kalbitzer, C , file =. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research , pages =

  18. [26]

    and Wouters, S

    ten Haaf, G. and Wouters, S. H.W. and Nijhof, D. F.J. and Mutsaers, P. H.A. and Vredenbregt, E. J.D. , doi =. Ultramicroscopy , keywords =

  19. [27]

    and Choi, E

    Uhm, Han S. and Choi, E. H. and Cho, G. S. and Kang, S. O. , file =. IEEE , number =

  20. [28]

    Volfson, A. A. and Subashiev, V. K. , doi =. Physica Status Solidi (B) , number =

  21. [29]

    and Plancher, E

    Vermeij, T. and Plancher, E. and Tasan, C. C. , doi =. Ultramicroscopy , pages =

  22. [30]

    Cairney, J. M. and Munroe, P. R. , doi =. Micron , keywords =

  23. [31]

    and Loeffler, M

    Huang, J. and Loeffler, M. and Muehle, U. and Moeller, W. and Mulders, J. J.L. and Kwakman, L. F.Tz and. Ultramicroscopy , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.10.011 , file =

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Kato, Naoko I. , doi =. Journal of Electron Microscopy , keywords =

  25. [33]

    Ultramicroscopy , keywords =

    Ko, Dong Su and Park, Young Min and Kim, Sung Dae and Kim, Young Woon , doi =. Ultramicroscopy , keywords =

  26. [34]

    Lucas and Nikolaus Grigorieff , title =

    Bronwyn A. Lucas and Nikolaus Grigorieff , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  27. [35]

    2020 , month =

    Angle-Resolved Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy , volume =. 2020 , month =. doi:10.1017/s1431927620016505 , journal =

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    1999 , month =

    Diffusons, locons and propagons: Character of atomic vibrations in amorphous Si , volume =. 1999 , month =. doi:10.1080/13642819908223054 , journal =

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    Kittel, Charles , title =

  30. [38]

    2005 , publisher=

    Nanoscale Energy Transport and Conversion: A Parallel Treatment of Electrons, Molecules, Phonons, and Photons , author=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  31. [39]

    Srivastava, Gyaneshwar P , file =

  32. [40]

    2023 , month =

    Direct Visualization of Localized Vibrations at Complex Grain Boundaries , volume =. 2023 , month =. doi:10.1002/adma.202208920 , journal =

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2019 , month =

    Position and momentum mapping of vibrations in graphene nanostructures , volume =. 2019 , month =. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1477-8 , journal =

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    A. P. Thompson and H. M. Aktulga and R. Berger and D. S. Bolintineanu and W. M. Brown and P. S. Crozier and P. J. in 't Veld and A. Kohlmeyer and S. G. Moore and T. D. Nguyen and R. Shan and M. J. Stevens and J. Tranchida and C. Trott and S. J. Plimpton. LAMMPS - a flexible si...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Open Research Europe , volume =

    Madsen, Jacob and Susi, Toma , year =. Open Research Europe , volume =. doi:10.12688/openreseurope.13015.1 , langid =

    doi

  36. [44]

    Applied Microscopy , keywords =

    Kwon, Yena and An, Byeong Seon and Shin, Yeon Ju and Yang, Cheol Woong , doi =. Applied Microscopy , keywords =

  37. [45]

    and Frey, L

    Lehrer, C. and Frey, L. and Petersen, S. and Mizutam, M. and Takai, M. and Ryssel, H. , doi =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ion Implantation Technology , pages =

  38. [46]

    Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

    Feser, Joseph P and Cahill, David G , doi =. Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

  39. [47]

    and Hattar, Khalid and Lang, Eric J

    Scott, Ethan A. and Hattar, Khalid and Lang, Eric J. and Aryana, Kiumars and Gaskins, John T. and Hopkins, Patrick E. , doi =. Physical Review B , keywords =

  40. [48]

    IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , number =

    Masetti, Guido and Severi, Maurizio and Solmi, Sandro , doi =. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , number =

  41. [49]

    Nuclear Inst

    Ziegler, James F and Ziegler, M D and Biersack, J P , doi =. Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, B , number =

  42. [50]

    Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

    Salnick, Alex and Opsal, Jon , doi =. Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

  43. [51]

    Journal of Applied Physics , number =

    Salnick, Alex and Opsal, Jon , doi =. Journal of Applied Physics , number =

  44. [52]

    Cahill, David G. , doi =. Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

  45. [53]

    and Olson, David H

    Braun, Jeffrey L. and Olson, David H. and Gaskins, John T. and Hopkins, Patrick E. , doi =. Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

  46. [54]

    Wang, Yuxin and Park, Ji Yong and Koh, Yee Kan and Cahill, David G. , doi =. Journal of Applied Physics , number =

  47. [55]

    and Cheaito, R

    Wang, L. and Cheaito, R. and Braun, J. L. and Giri, A. and Hopkins, P. E. , doi =. Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

  48. [56]

    and Tomko, John A

    Radue, Elizabeth L. and Tomko, John A. and Giri, Ashutosh and Braun, Jeffrey L. and Zhou, Xin and Prezhdo, Oleg V. and Runnerstrom, Evan L. and Maria, Jon Paul and Hopkins, Patrick E. , doi =. ACS Photonics , keywords =

  49. [57]

    and Cheaito, Ramez and Chiesa, Matteo , doi =

    Schmidt, Aaron J. and Cheaito, Ramez and Chiesa, Matteo , doi =. Review of Scientific Instruments , number =

  50. [58]

    Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics , number =

    Koh, Yee Kan and Cahill, David G , doi =. Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics , number =

  51. [59]

    and Hopkins, Patrick E

    Braun, Jeffrey L. and Hopkins, Patrick E. , doi =. Journal of Applied Physics , number =

  52. [60]

    Sturm , pages =

    K. Sturm , pages =. Dynamic Structure Factor: An Introduction , title =. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A , doi =. 1993 , lastchecked =

    1993

  53. [61]

    Correlations in Space and Time and Born Approximation Scattering in Systems of Interacting Particles , author =. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 1954 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.95.249 , url =

    1954 doi

  54. [62]

    and Walker, Harrison A

    Hoglund, Eric R. and Walker, Harrison A. and Hussain, Kamal and Bao, De-Liang and Ni, Haoyang and Mamun, Abdullah and Baxter, Jefferey and Caldwell, Joshua D. and Khan, Asif and Pantelides, Sokrates T. and Hopkins, Patrick E. and Hachtel, Jordan A. , title =. Advanced Material...

    doi

  55. [63]

    Phonon modes and electron--phonon coupling at the FeSe/SrTiO3 interface , journal=

    Yang, Hongbin and Zhou, Yinong and Miao, Guangyao and Rusz, J. Phonon modes and electron--phonon coupling at the FeSe/SrTiO3 interface , journal=. 2024 , month=. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08118-0 , url=

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Quantum mechanical model for phonon excitation in electron diffraction and imaging using a Born-Oppenheimer approximation , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2010 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.82.104103 , url =

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    Lattice Thermal Conductivity of Disordered Semiconductor Alloys at High Temperatures , author =. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 1963 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.131.1906 , url =

    1963 doi

  58. [66]

    Virtual crystal approximation revisited: Application to dielectric and piezoelectric properties of perovskites , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2000 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.61.7877 , url =

    doi

  59. [67]

    Applied Physics Letters , volume =

    Beechem, Thomas and Graham, Samuel and Hopkins, Patrick and Norris, Pamela , title =. Applied Physics Letters , volume =. 2007 , month =. doi:10.1063/1.2437685 , url =

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    Matrix Methods in Optical Instrument Design

    Willem Brouwer. Matrix Methods in Optical Instrument Design . 1964

    1964

  61. [69]

    K. L. Brown, F. Rothacker, D. C. Carey, and Ch. Iselin. Transport: A computer program for designing charged particle beam transport systems (rev. 2). Technical report, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC), Menlo Park, CA (United States), 05 1983

    1983

  62. [70]

    Hawkes and E Kasper

    P.W. Hawkes and E Kasper. Principles of Electron Optics . 1989

    1989

  63. [71]

    Dunin-Borkowski, and Andrew Stewart

    David Landers, Ian Clancy, Dieter Weber, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, and Andrew Stewart. Temgym basic: transmission electron microscopy simulation software for teaching and training of microscope operation. Journal of Applied Crystallography , 56(4):1267–1276, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    J.R. Pierce. Theory and Design of Electron Beams . Bell Telephone Laboratories series. Van Nostrand Company, 1949

    1949

  65. [73]

    Towards 0.1 nm resolution with the first spherically corrected transmission electron microscope

    Maximilian Haider, Herald Rose, Stephan Uhlemann, Bernd Kabius, and Knut Urban. Towards 0.1 nm resolution with the first spherically corrected transmission electron microscope. Journal of Electron Microscopy , 47(5):395--405, 01 1998

    1998

  66. [74]

    Transmission Electron Microscopy and Diffractometry of Materials

    Brent Fultz and James Howe. Transmission Electron Microscopy and Diffractometry of Materials . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013

    2013

  67. [75]

    Hoglund and Andrew R

    Eric R. Hoglund and Andrew R. Lupini. Multidimensional images and aberrations in stem. Chinese Physics B , 33(9):096807, sep 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Post sample aberrations in stem

    Andrew R Lupini, Miaofang Chi, and Eric R Hoglund. Post sample aberrations in stem. Microscopy and Microanalysis , 31:ozaf048.071, 07 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.